IT AI Index

Index › Products › miniMDM · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

miniMDM

2Judge labels

1First choices

0Negative labels

2 / 14Models named it

1Category

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

1 label, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. miniMDM was named 1 time in Master data, where Profisee MDM led with 41%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business65 of 101

under the label threshold

Mid-market10 of 92

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In master data · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named miniMDM for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant	Since September 2026
Master data management	Data platform	2%	10 of 92	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Profisee MDM at 41%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for miniMDM yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated miniMDM across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	First choice	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	1	1
GPT-6 Luna	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labels1

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative2 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 1 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“For the tightest budget, AtroCore or miniMDM would be the best starting points” MiniMax M2.5 · Master data · budget prompt · first choice

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as miniMDM, over the 2 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and miniMDM was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

AtroCore MDM2 of 21Not among the top eight

Pimcore2 of 20Not among the top eight

Informatica MDM1 of 20Not among the top eight

Microsoft Power Apps1 of 20Not among the top eight

OpenDQ1 of 20Not among the top eight

Profisee MDM1 of 20Not among the top eight

SAP1 of 20Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named miniMDM. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 2 of the 2 answers that named miniMDM and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

atrocore.com2

getapp.com2

minimdm.devYour site2

devopsschool.com1

fanruan.com1

geopostcodes.com1

github.com1

pieteams.github.io1

startupstash.com1

Ten of the twelve domain citations in answers naming miniMDM came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

atrocore.com/en/blog/best-master-data-management-tools2

getapp.com/it-management-software/master-data-management/p/open-source2

minimdm.dev/2

atrocore.com/en/blog/best-microsoft-mds-alternative1

atrocore.com/en/blog/open-source-master-data-management1

atrocore.com/en/master-data-management1

devopsschool.com/blog/top-10-master-data-management-tools-in-2025-features-pros-cons-compa1

fanruan.com/en/blog/master-data-management-solutions-importance-business-success1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Follow miniMDM

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

The company

miniMDM is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: A minimal, open-source Master Data Management app
minimdm.dev
For: If your reference data has outgrown a spreadsheet but doesn't need a multi-year rollout, you're exactly who miniMDM is for.
minimdm.dev
Price stated: Free & MIT licensed minimdm.dev
Free plan or trial: Free & MIT licensed minimdm.dev
Certifications: MIT licensed
Not stated on the pages read: Starting price, integrations, hosting, customers

What miniMDM's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: minimdm.dev. A claimed page can correct any of them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when miniMDM's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as miniMDM, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for miniMDM by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where miniMDM is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name miniMDM, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.